Narrative:

Flight from hpn to roc was uneventful. During 5 hour layover at roc there were periods of heavy rain. During subsequent start, taxi and takeoff on runway 22, all VHF communications with clearance delivery, ground control and tower were normal and we climbed to our initial altitude of 10000'. The handoff to rochester departure control on 123.7 KHZ was accomplished shortly after takeoff and a 'maintain runway heading' instruction was received and acknowledged. Passing 6500' while on runway heading I attempted to contact departure control to obtain an easterly turn. Multiple attempts on VHF 1A and 1B, as well as VHF 2 were unsuccessful from both pilot and copilot positions. Mics were exchanged with no success. There was no spare microphone onboard. Now at 10000' and 20 mi southwest, still on runway heading, we changed our transponder code to 7600 and attempted to contact in turn, roc tower, ground and finally ZOB on 128.25, all with no success. Occasionally we would receive bits of fragmented xmissions by both departure and center advising us we had a stuck microphone. Both mics were unplugged, yet the condition persisted. Selecting the 'emergency' position on the audio control system panel failed to correct the problem. Headsets and speakers were in simultaneous use throughout the flight. An attempt to use the flitephone to contact ATC was unsuccessful due to a busy signal. At 35 mi southwest, and still at 10000', I elected to cancel the flight. I briefly considered continuing on to westchester with no radio, but decided against that option, considering the massive coordination effort required to transit cle, bos and ny center airspace, as well as ny TRACON and the westchester air traffic area. Although it may have been technically permissible, I dismissed that option in favor of a more prudent course of action which called for a VFR approach and landing at roc. We squawked 7700 to signal our intentions to depart from our last assigned clearance and commenced a level turn back to the roc VOR, transmitting in the blind our intention to land at roc. Shortly thereafter our VHF system appeared to be restored for a time with departure control. We were able to conduct normal 2-WAY communication and were told that we 'did everything right,' and that our actions were observed on radar and understood. Thinking that we had solved our problem, roc departure control then issued an amended clearance to destination via direct to dny VOR, with a climb to FL230, a new transponder code and a frequency change to ZOB. Departure control advised us (as expected!) that ZOB would not accept us 'lost communication.' I requested and received a lost communication clearance from departure control which would enable us to return to roc at 10000' for the ILS 22 approach should the handoff be unsuccessful and we lost communication capability again. The handoff to ZOB failed. Considering ZOB's refusal for continued flight west/O radios, at FL200 I made a final decision to terminate the flight at roc, not trusting the VHF system any further. We reset the 7700/7600 code, and activated our agreed upon lost communication procedure, stopping the climb with a simultaneous turn to roc. After some period of time ZOB called us, and upon my request coordinated with roc for a single frequency approach and landing clearance. The landing was normal. Normal communications were established with roc tower for taxi clearance. In retrospect, I believe we followed the most prudent and realistic course of action. My concern lies with adherence to standard lost communications procedures published in part 91 of the far's. There are times when it is neither necessary nor advisable to continue to destination with no communications capability. I would like to see a procedure developed and adopted into far's which provides for a return to point of origin rather than continuation to destination when it is deemed to be the safest method of terminating the flight.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CORP LTT LOST COM AFTER TKOF. SQUAWKED EMERGENCY AND RETURNED TO DEP ARPT.

Narrative: FLT FROM HPN TO ROC WAS UNEVENTFUL. DURING 5 HR LAYOVER AT ROC THERE WERE PERIODS OF HEAVY RAIN. DURING SUBSEQUENT START, TAXI AND TKOF ON RWY 22, ALL VHF COMS WITH CLRNC DELIVERY, GND CTL AND TWR WERE NORMAL AND WE CLIMBED TO OUR INITIAL ALT OF 10000'. THE HDOF TO ROCHESTER DEP CTL ON 123.7 KHZ WAS ACCOMPLISHED SHORTLY AFTER TKOF AND A 'MAINTAIN RWY HDG' INSTRUCTION WAS RECEIVED AND ACKNOWLEDGED. PASSING 6500' WHILE ON RWY HDG I ATTEMPTED TO CONTACT DEP CTL TO OBTAIN AN EASTERLY TURN. MULTIPLE ATTEMPTS ON VHF 1A AND 1B, AS WELL AS VHF 2 WERE UNSUCCESSFUL FROM BOTH PLT AND COPLT POSITIONS. MICS WERE EXCHANGED WITH NO SUCCESS. THERE WAS NO SPARE MIC ONBOARD. NOW AT 10000' AND 20 MI SW, STILL ON RWY HDG, WE CHANGED OUR TRANSPONDER CODE TO 7600 AND ATTEMPTED TO CONTACT IN TURN, ROC TWR, GND AND FINALLY ZOB ON 128.25, ALL WITH NO SUCCESS. OCCASIONALLY WE WOULD RECEIVE BITS OF FRAGMENTED XMISSIONS BY BOTH DEP AND CENTER ADVISING US WE HAD A STUCK MIC. BOTH MICS WERE UNPLUGGED, YET THE CONDITION PERSISTED. SELECTING THE 'EMER' POS ON THE AUDIO CTL SYS PANEL FAILED TO CORRECT THE PROB. HEADSETS AND SPEAKERS WERE IN SIMULTANEOUS USE THROUGHOUT THE FLT. AN ATTEMPT TO USE THE FLITEPHONE TO CONTACT ATC WAS UNSUCCESSFUL DUE TO A BUSY SIGNAL. AT 35 MI SW, AND STILL AT 10000', I ELECTED TO CANCEL THE FLT. I BRIEFLY CONSIDERED CONTINUING ON TO WESTCHESTER WITH NO RADIO, BUT DECIDED AGAINST THAT OPTION, CONSIDERING THE MASSIVE COORD EFFORT REQUIRED TO TRANSIT CLE, BOS AND NY CENTER AIRSPACE, AS WELL AS NY TRACON AND THE WESTCHESTER ATA. ALTHOUGH IT MAY HAVE BEEN TECHNICALLY PERMISSIBLE, I DISMISSED THAT OPTION IN FAVOR OF A MORE PRUDENT COURSE OF ACTION WHICH CALLED FOR A VFR APCH AND LNDG AT ROC. WE SQUAWKED 7700 TO SIGNAL OUR INTENTIONS TO DEPART FROM OUR LAST ASSIGNED CLRNC AND COMMENCED A LEVEL TURN BACK TO THE ROC VOR, XMITTING IN THE BLIND OUR INTENTION TO LAND AT ROC. SHORTLY THEREAFTER OUR VHF SYS APPEARED TO BE RESTORED FOR A TIME WITH DEP CTL. WE WERE ABLE TO CONDUCT NORMAL 2-WAY COM AND WERE TOLD THAT WE 'DID EVERYTHING RIGHT,' AND THAT OUR ACTIONS WERE OBSERVED ON RADAR AND UNDERSTOOD. THINKING THAT WE HAD SOLVED OUR PROB, ROC DEP CTL THEN ISSUED AN AMENDED CLRNC TO DEST VIA DIRECT TO DNY VOR, WITH A CLB TO FL230, A NEW TRANSPONDER CODE AND A FREQ CHANGE TO ZOB. DEP CTL ADVISED US (AS EXPECTED!) THAT ZOB WOULD NOT ACCEPT US 'LOST COM.' I REQUESTED AND RECEIVED A LOST COM CLRNC FROM DEP CTL WHICH WOULD ENABLE US TO RETURN TO ROC AT 10000' FOR THE ILS 22 APCH SHOULD THE HDOF BE UNSUCCESSFUL AND WE LOST COM CAPABILITY AGAIN. THE HDOF TO ZOB FAILED. CONSIDERING ZOB'S REFUSAL FOR CONTINUED FLT W/O RADIOS, AT FL200 I MADE A FINAL DECISION TO TERMINATE THE FLT AT ROC, NOT TRUSTING THE VHF SYS ANY FURTHER. WE RESET THE 7700/7600 CODE, AND ACTIVATED OUR AGREED UPON LOST COM PROC, STOPPING THE CLB WITH A SIMULTANEOUS TURN TO ROC. AFTER SOME PERIOD OF TIME ZOB CALLED US, AND UPON MY REQUEST COORDINATED WITH ROC FOR A SINGLE FREQ APCH AND LNDG CLRNC. THE LNDG WAS NORMAL. NORMAL COMS WERE ESTABLISHED WITH ROC TWR FOR TAXI CLRNC. IN RETROSPECT, I BELIEVE WE FOLLOWED THE MOST PRUDENT AND REALISTIC COURSE OF ACTION. MY CONCERN LIES WITH ADHERENCE TO STANDARD LOST COMS PROCS PUBLISHED IN PART 91 OF THE FAR'S. THERE ARE TIMES WHEN IT IS NEITHER NECESSARY NOR ADVISABLE TO CONTINUE TO DEST WITH NO COMS CAPABILITY. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A PROC DEVELOPED AND ADOPTED INTO FAR'S WHICH PROVIDES FOR A RETURN TO POINT OF ORIGIN RATHER THAN CONTINUATION TO DEST WHEN IT IS DEEMED TO BE THE SAFEST METHOD OF TERMINATING THE FLT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.